Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Again, will's point....they cant or wont make a proactive step (through private negotiations) before first publicly telling their people how tough they are and that they wont be bullied....it would be a sign of weakness.
|
They could have avoided the situation to begin with. I don't underestimate Iranian leaders.
Quote:
|
Given that the Bush/Cheney/Bolton approach to Iran accomplished little in eight years,
|
Depends on your perspective I guess. They avoided nuclear war - that was good.
Quote:
|
I think its reasonable to give Obama more than 9 months, particularly since, despite the rhetoric, Iran is no closer to being a nuclear threat.
|
Obama is the President. Period. Presidents don't get the privilege of saying "oops, I am new on the job". They need to enter the job with core convictions and a solid game plan - I hope you are not suggesting he is making it up as he goes along. I have never been clear on his foreign policy and have been assuming others, like you, understand. On this one I am going along for the ride, I have no insight into the "intellectual" approach to conflict resolution.
---------- Post added at 11:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
By getting involved we either have one of two options:
1) become the enemy of the perceived top-dog
2) become top-dog.
Neither of these are favorable outcomes, so the obvious answer is to butt out for the time being. Attacking them sets us on a course to one of two options, neither of which make any sense for us.
|
I think we are "top-dog" and have been since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Quote:
|
In this case, the case of nuclear weapons, we have to let the UN do their jobs.
|
The UN is and has been totally ineffective.
Quote:
|
I know it seems impotent, but the fact is that the inspectors are damn good at their jobs. Iran has agreed to allow inspectors to see this new facility, so we're not in a position where we need to be considering punitive or military action.
|
Again, I don't underestimate the Iranian leadership. I think it is possible that they could fool the inspectors.
Quote:
We don't beat them head on, with military or economic actions. That just either empowers their corrupt leadership or puts us on track to be the next corrupt leadership. The chest-beating of President Obama in this instance is bad policy.
As far as your interpretation of their chest-beating response as a threat, look at it within the context of the tribe: they HAVE to respond that way otherwise they'll be perceived as weak. It's not an active threat as much as it is either a conditioned response or a PR move. Do you think Iran really wants to get into a nuclear war with Israel or the US? Of course not because they'd lose even if they managed somehow to win. They're tribal, not stupid. Nuclear power is about independence, which is very important to them. If they are developing nuclear weapons (and honestly there's still no evidence that they are), it wouldn't be to use them, it would be to demonstrate strength and to enter the MAD alliance of unattackable states.
I'm much more worried about Pakistan and their nuclear weapons than I would be about a nuclear Iran... but there's still no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. That has to be central to the discussion.
Judging by President Obama's inflammatory speech, I'm not entirely convinced our goal is peace. We saw the same thing with Bush; he promised no nation building, no going to war for resources, etc., but then he and his lackys started reporting on all this intelligence. "We're in danger, we have to do something!!" Next thing you know we're at war for about 48 hours and then we've conquered Iraq. Fuck.
I'm pretty sure President Obama is not open to taking an Iranian wife for his harem, so the obvious outcomes to this are either annihilating Iran, losing to Iran, or backing the hell down and letting the professionals do their job. President Obama's speech was a step in the wrong direction, and was an obvious play to look strong on "terror" or whatever.
|
I am not sure who Obama was talking to. Was his speech directed at people like me, so that he comes across as being more aggressive than he want to be, to Iranian leaders, Iranian people, the rest of the world, or who. When Bush was President, I though I understood what he was saying - I wonder if there is someone who can tell us what Obama is really saying?
It is interesting, I was having a discussion with a neighbor last night and he said the reason I have a problem with Obama is because he is an "intellectual" or a person who openly weighs, talks and is open to both sides of an issue without firm conviction based on they way they are trained to think. We went through examples of why I find Obama so frustrating to listen too. He said, and I agree, my mind is wired different. I need to just stand back and observe for awhile. I think I will simply read what others have to say on this topic.